Spell out “the harm caused”
The quislings emerge.
Her “overarching concern for vulnerable people,” she says, as if women were invulnerable. Men who pretend to be women are not more vulnerable than women. They’re not as vulnerable as women either. If our overarching concern is for vulnerable people then it’s extremely bizarre to choose people brandishing flares and shouting threats from behind masks over one woman being abused and harassed by the masked shouters.
And what is “the harm caused”?
And how are the group in question more “vulnerable and marginalized” than women? Since when do women hold all the cards? Since when are women made of stone while men are made of gauze and smoke?
Miserable sneaking coward.
Not an academic, just an average Roj with a bit of education and experience. So, tell me, what sort of academic signs a letter without understanding content and context? Not something I would do.
Roj, it seems to be a common British practice nowadays, signing things without understanding them, or saying subsequently that you hadn’t understood them when you signed them despite insisting at the time that you did. Lord Frost, though, manages to be not quite so mealy-mouthed about his dishonesty as this craven academic. But, then, I suppose, he doesn’t have to be.
I’ve been asking for the last 5 years: What “harm”? What do you mean by “harm”? It has to be shown, to be proven, not merely asserted and assumed. No one has yet articulated any “harm” that can be verifiably demonstrated to be actual and true.
I asked Twitter “what harm?” this morning and the response from a random user was a link to a thread that made unfounded accusations about Stock’s alleged behaviour to students and then claimed copies of emails which… showed no such thing. It just didn’t add up to evidence of Stock’s malfeasance in any way unless the claims were already taken at face value.
The random Twitter person, as so often, seems to have taken a block of text of more than one paragraph to equal evidence of whatever he wanted to be true.
Then I called him a dickhead and he called me a racist slur, so it didn’t end well.
Roj, that’s a point which can’t be made strongly enough, I think.
If I were still in academia, I would be very careful about signing a thing like that.
In fact, I was, once. James Watson was about to do a talk in the city. I had my ticket and was looking forward to it. But then details emerged of his racism and there was a push to cancel the talk. An open letter to that effect went around the university and I was asked to sign it.
There were several factors in play: free speech vs racism vs the fact that I really wanted to hear the talk.
In the end, I didn’t sign the letter and the talk was cancelled anyway.
But the point is that I thought long and hard about what I considered my duty as an academic, my feelings as a hater of racism and my concerns about free speech. And this was a thing of little consequence, in the general scheme of things. It wasn’t about getting a colleague threatened, put in danger and sacked.
I do not understand how these academics can bear to sign such a letter either not knowing or not caring what the letter is about or what the consequences might be. For one thing, they might be signing away their own academic freedom.
The trans cult wants academic freedom too, but they see anyone who opposes complete aquiescence to the whole of their agenda as The Enemy, which doesn’t really resemble academic freedom.
Mona Pinchis-Paulsen is a Pronoun Person. Being a Pronoun Person means there is no room for debate, only strict adherence to the trans dogma. She/Her must have forgotten that for a minute. Nevermind that Kathleen Stock does not hate or fear trans people and is eminently reasonable and open minded on the subject. The trans cult allows no quarter for The Enemy, particularly if they are women, and especially if they are feminists.
Roj and latsot, I’m not a signer of things either, unless it’s something I have written myself. I find that I have altered my perspective on things too often, and have had to backpedal on my previous position or had to change it in some subtle way, so taking responsibility for someone else’s position by signing to it is almost always out of the question. I think I am somewhat indecisive by nature. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Whenever I ask about specific harms coming from gender critical books and essays I am told that they contribute to the mistaken idea that trans people are not “who they say they are.” This not only causes pain but erases their existence and thus makes it acceptable to kill them, beat them up, and deny them their human right to use the facilities and provisions which matches their True Gender.
It’s all connected, all the same.They claim the difference between Kathleen Stock and a group of men kicking a transwoman to death in an alley is just a difference in degree, not kind. Some of them infer it might also be a difference in opportunity.
The University of Sussex has issued a statement on Twitter upholding Prof. Stock’s right to hold gender-critical views. About time.
https://twitter.com/SussexUni/status/1451201192357294089
Never mind that the murder stats don’t include a lot of cases (if any) of a group of men kicking transwomen to death. It happens. How do I know? Because stats lie, and TAs tell me so. I must meld my mind with the borg and accept the universal groupthink.
latsot, I find myself on the horns of that dilemma frequently. It’s not a fun place to be, but at least I’m thinking about it.
iknklast #10
I thought the people literally murdering transwomen were all feminist women? Unless, of course, they are using their witchcraft and mind control abilities to get men to do their dirty work for them..
I think the tendency today on the left is to equate listening to a speaker with any history of what is currently considered un-pc comments, with using the results of Nazis doctor experiments.
The quisling has deleted her tweets.